Have We Been Misinformed About The Civic Development Project?

7/24/2017

Print

Subject: Have we been misinformed about the Civic Development next to Calverley Grounds?

From:

Nicholas Pope (nicholas.pope@yahoo.com)

To:

david.jukes@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; tracy.moore@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; ben.chapelard@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; peter.lidstone@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; david.neve@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; dianne.hill@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; graham.munn@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; bob.backhouse@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; paul.barringtonking@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; ronen.basu@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; godfrey.bland@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; peter.bulman@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; barbara.cobbold@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; tom.dawlings@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; david.elliott@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; nathan.gray@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; linda.hall@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; sarah.hamilton@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; james.hannam@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; edmund.hastie@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; lawrence.heasman@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; bill.hills@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; len.horwood@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; thelma.huggett@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; nasir.jamil@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; alex.lewis-grey@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; carol.mackonochie@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; jane.march@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; alan.mcdermott@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; barry.noakes@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; sue.nuttall@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; peter.oakford@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; beverley.palmer@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; joy.podbury@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; catherine.rankin@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; david.reilly@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; james.scholes@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; joe.simmons@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; don.sloan@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; julia.soyke@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; julian.stanyer@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; claire.stewart@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; elizabeth.thomas@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; zulhash.uddin@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; lynne.weatherly@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; frank.williams@tunbridgewells.gov.uk; chris.woodward@tunbridgewells.gov.uk;

Cc:

greg.clark.mp@parliament.uk; jimkedge@blueyonder.co.uk; chavassier28@yahoo.co.uk; katembishop@hotmail.co.uk; alastair.tod@gmail.com; ibeavis59@btinternet.com; barbarakedge@yahoo.co.uk; katejroberts@gmail.com; rhiannonharfoot@hotmail.co.uk; ntber@yahoo.co.uk;

Date:

Monday, 24 July 2017, 9:59

Monday 24th July 2017 To: all councillors CC: Greg Clark MP, Friends of Calverley Grounds committee and trustees

Dear councillor, With the debate of the "Save Our Park" petition at Full Council on Wednesday evening, I thought I should write you a follow up to the letter I wrote to you a few weeks ago.

There has been increasing coverage in the media over the last few weeks in newspapers and on TV and radio and a new website (twciviccentre.co.uk) has been launched by the council.

The Leader of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council told me that I have been fed misinformation about this civic development project. I think he is right.

I have been misinformed. Residents and business owners have been misinformed. And, I suggest, you, as a councillor, have been misinformed.

We have all been misinformed by those running the Civic Development Project.

Let me go over a few details where we have been misinformed. == Public Consultation ==

about:blank

1/5

7/24/2017

Print

We have been told on BBC Radio Kent and in a number of other news reports that there have been a number of meetings and consultations with the Friends of Calverley Grounds, other groups and residents. Friends of Calverley Grounds has attended consultation sessions over the building designs with the architects. The architects have made some significant changes to the massing of the buildings. That is true.

However, the most important decision in this project was not a consultation but a presentation.

The selection of the site for the office building and the theatre was presented to Friends of Calverley Grounds.

Those attending were taken through a slideshow which covered the 13 site options that had been considered for a new theatre and office building, the shortlisted options and the final decision of the current site next to Calverley Grounds. There was never a strong and clear reason to support the final site selection. In fact, few reasons were given, and those that were given were about continuity of theatre and only using land owned by the council. These are not robust reasons for selecting a site that damages a Grade II Listed public park for buildings that will be with us for the foreseeable future.

This decision, the most important decision, has surprisingly little information available.

Is it this easy to decide to develop on, under and next to a Grade II Listed park? This is not a small development, it will have a major impact on the town centre park that many love. It is not sympathetic to the character of Grade II Listed park in any way. == Honesty and Accuracy == Increasingly, there are concerns that some information being released into the public domain by representatives of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council is misleading, untrue or suggesting certainty where there is none.

Times of Tunbridge Wells on Wednesday 19th July is a clear example of where representatives of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council have gone out of their way to misinform readers of the newspaper and discredit those that oppose the development.

Let me take you through some points: Page 1, column 1 - A council spokesperson said: "The petition gives the impression that Calverley Grounds is at risk... that the park is being taken away. No parks are under threat."

Friends of Calverley Grounds say the park is at risk. 993 square metres of park land is going to be built on, the view will disappear, and it is likely more hard terracing will be built outside the new buildings. Additionally, building two massive buildings up to 6 plus storeys high next to Calverley Grounds completely changes a park that is Grade II Listed.

Page 7, column 4 - Councillor Tracy Moore said: "We are looking at building on less than 2 per cent of Calverley Grounds. It is not encroachment of the park."

For a start this is clear contradiction - how can you build on part of a park and say it is not encroachment?

The actual land take (or encroachment) is 993 square metres of a public park that is 46,133 square metres in size. This is not less than 2 per cent, but 2.15 per cent of the park. It is a long strip 9 metres wide and a block of land behind and through the park keeper's lodge (currently a dentist) and the public WCs. I know this because I walked around the park with the architect, Paddy Dillon, on 23rd May to define the verified views, which we are yet to see, and understand where the three buildings would be and which trees would go. Note: the third building is the underground car park which encroaches further under the park requiring the removal of all the mature pine trees in the north western corner of Calverley Grounds.

Page 7, column 4 - Councillor Tracy Moore said: "Historic England thinks we would be improving and healing the edge of Calverley Grounds with these new buildings."

I am not aware of any official response on the proposed development from Historic England. It is possible that a high level, informal discussion took place with Historic England but this does not relate to the current design, and probably not to any of the earlier designs, either, just to the concept of doing something on the about:blank

2/5

7/24/2017

Print

western boundary of Calverley Grounds which is a little messy, but could be tidied up or "healed" much better without a massive development costing ÂŁ72m but through some relatively simple, minor, low impact changes.

In the Historic England's record for Calverley Park and Calverley Grounds it says "This garden or other land is registered under the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 within the Register of Historic Parks and Gardens by English Heritage for its special historic interest."

A notable feature is the view which Historic England describes as follows: "From the higher slopes and the plateau there are extensive views westwards and southwards, through tree cover, over Tunbridge Wells and to the more distant countryside." The proposed buildings would block this view westwards and damage one of the key features identified in Historic England's record.

Page 8, column 3 - Councillor Tracy Moore said: "I have been into three secondary schools in the last ten days, and these teenagers, lower sixth, were broadly enthusiastic about the project..."

When I asked a teacher who was present in one of the three classes Tracy Moore visited whether there was "clear support or opposition" to the project the response was: "Difficult to say". This does not sound like enthusiastic support about the project to me.

Page 8, column 3 - David Jukes said the petition claimed that "20% of Calverley Grounds to be covered by concrete" The "Save Our Park" petition has never made such ridiculous claims. This is blatantly untrue. == Myths & FAQs on twciviccentre.co.uk == Myth 1 plays down the encroachment into Calverley Grounds, and Historic England says that they have not been formally consulted. Should we fully believe the answer to this myth?

Myth 3 - the loss of 300 spaces near the railway station and the High Street would affect businesses during construction. Few people park at the top of town in Crescent Road, Meadow Road or Royal Victoria Place to visit the bottom of town. Offsetting the loss of parking in the Great Hall car park by extending Crescent Road car park will not alleviate businesses on the High Street and at the bottom end of Mount Pleasant.

Myth 4 gives certainty on something where there is none. No new users have been identified for the current Town Hall and Assembly Hall. The buildings may end up empty and derelict. The first FAQ asks a similar question with a very certain answer.

Myth 6 - any theatre in any new site will benefit the minority who go to the theatre. From my experience, the theatre is rarely full, and often falls below 60% of seats being sold. How will a theatre with 200 more seats fare?

Many of the FAQs miss important details (usually the negative ones) and offer certainty on some answers where there is none. I have asked Tracy Moore that this website be taken down. I shall ask the council more formally to take this website down or change the responses to give honest unbiased answers. == Missing Important Details == In Councillor David Jukes response to my letter, the same letter I sent to every councillor, Councillor Jukes seems to have failed to be fully on top of all the facts.

Councillor David Jukes says: "Of course no commercial developer be allowed to build on the public park and any land that we are taking on the park will be reinstated for public use..."

How do you return 993 square metres of land to public use when it is under a building?

The majority of this building will be used for commercial use, and there are concerns it could become 100% commercial use. Whether for commercial or council use, building on the Grade II Listed park is wrong.

Councillor David Jukes says: "We are actually reinstating parts of the park which have been built on in the past, such as the dentist surgery which I believe was built in 1928 and the public toilets which are not the most attractive building in Tunbridge Wells." about:blank

3/5

7/24/2017

Print

The land being reinstated that has previously been built on is half of the dentist surgery (former park keeper's lodge) and two thirds of the public toilets. These small plots being "reinstated" are a minute fraction of the land take.

Councillor David Jukes says: "We will also be opening up areas of Calverley Grounds which are currently used by undesirables..."

It is true that this area behind the dentist surgery is an area that attracts youths and occasional rough sleepers, but building a massive office block on part of this land is not how problems in parks are normally resolved, or should ever be resolved. I am very aware of the problems, and I, and other members of Friends of Calverley Grounds, have cleared up rubbish here on a number of occasions, and I have spoken to groups of youths to ask them to help clear up. They usually do help. This north western corner of Calverley Grounds is a lovely area that could be opened up for use with a few low impact changes to Calverley Grounds, and certainly not by building a mainly commercial office building on part of it.

Councillor David Jukes says: "The buildings are not massive they have been arranged so that they form a boundary to the park..."

I would not call buildings of 6 or more storeys in height small. The office building is at its lowest of 3 storeys in the north western corner at the top of the hill, but this is still large, and the theatre's fly tower is higher than 6 storeys.

David Jukes is correct, these buildings will most definitely form a boundary to the park, a high solid boundary in place of a soft, green boundary of trees and shrubs, a most unwelcome boundary that will damage this Grade II Listed park.

Councillor David Jukes says: "Any disturbance of trees will be ameliorated by the replanting and the landscape design that we have had undertaken which is part of the total project."

Having asked about a review, masterplan and landscaping for the whole of Calverley Grounds at the Town Forum on Thursday 20th July, it is quite clear that, if this project were to proceed, the only landscaping will be immediately around the proposed development. For such a large development on the edge of a Grade II Listed park, this shows complete lack of concern or consideration for the whole park, an important space enjoyed by many visitors, workers and residents which would attract an even larger footfall from theatre goers and office workers.

For the 5 years that Friends of Calverley Grounds has existed, we have asked about a masterplan, review and strategy for the park. All we have ever had is the maintenance plan. 5 years and nothing. Why should we expect something now when we are told that only the area around the development will have a landscaping plan?

On the photograph of the view looking westwards from Calverley Grounds towards Mount Pleasant and the Tunbridge Wells Common that was in the letter to all councillors, Councillor David Jukes commented: "The interesting thing is the photo you show I guess was taken in the 70's or 80's..."

When did Councillor Jukes last walk into Calverley Grounds and look at the park and the view. Did he stop to look at the photograph for longer than a fraction of a second? Was a feature that was there in the 1970s and 1980s, and, indeed, up until 2010, missing? Yes, the bandstand is not there.

The truth is the photograph of the beautiful view with trees and shrubs with foliage of different colours and textures was taken in mid May this year. Yes, May 2017, not 1970-something or 1980-something. I know because I took the photograph.

So, the answer is that Calverley Grounds does look beautiful and has that beautiful view that Historic England describe in their record.

Councillor David Jukes asked me "Who said there is no business plan for this project?"

On Tuesday 23rd May, William Benson was asked by a member of the Calverley Park Association at a meeting if there was a business plan. William Benson quite categorically said "No". Councillor David Jukes who was about:blank

4/5

7/24/2017

Print

sitting at the back of the room did not attempt to correct him. Perhaps there is now a business plan, but allowing a project to commit over ÂŁ4m without a business plan would never be allowed in the commercial world.

I could go on, but I will not.

This project has been allowed to come a long way, but this is no reason we should allow a project that is wrong for an important park in Tunbridge Wells to continue to a sad ending where a much loved Grade II Listed park is damaged beyond repair.

The opposition to this project is not small, and it is growing as people learn about the planned destruction of the important western part our Grade II Listed park.

I urge you to stop this project from progressing any further.

Yours Nicholas Pope Chairman, Friends of Calverley Grounds (registered charity no. 1166986) e: nicholas.pope@yahoo.com m: 07956 340 255

about:blank

5/5